Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 335 posts

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#271

Post by atlantas »

Devasta wrote: post #223
beepbooptheory wrote: post #216

The general resistance in this thread is something. Every day on here we all find issues with the industry as a whole, have complaints, identify negative patterns grounded in investment goals or profit. A huge majority of people on here agree: there are problems and things as a whole need to change. Its not "what use is a union to me ", it is that there is an ethical imperative to try and fight against the destructiv…

Its fascinating that for a profession that likes to think its all about understanding complex systems, we have so many that oppose unionization.

This is precisely why it's opposed by system thinkers. They understand that it doesn't make sense in this particular system.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#272

Post by msrenee »

scarface74 wrote: post #236
ceejayoz wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every time the union got involved, the plants just picked up and left. Unions have been around - especially in manufacturing - long before they started offshoring production. The cost of labor in China and elsewhere was simply too low, unionized or not.

The unions kept pushing for increased pay. But regardless, what good would unions be to prevent outsourcing?

It really depends on the numbers here. Were the companies paying say $12/hour in current terms and the union was asking for more or were they trying to get $35/hr raised beyond what was reasonable for the work?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#273

Post by erulabs »

andrew_ wrote: post #23
erulabs wrote: post #2

I need the long German word for “however this plays out, it will be used as a spurious example either for or against some extreme position”. If it works out, great - that hardly means unions are a foolproof idea - and if it fails it’s hardly a condemnation of unions themselves. And yet, it will be interesting to see how this plays out!

That's confirmation bias, no?

It’s like oncoming confirmation bias - like a car wreck you see coming but the car in front of you doesn’t - and you’re helpless to do anything but honk your horn “nooooooooooo!”

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#274

Post by zarkov99 »

igorkraw wrote: post #213
zarkov99 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you do not want a future where you have to pay union dues and give up individual agency in your relationship with your employer? Unions might be a necessary evil to rectify massive power imbalances but that is hardly the case in tech, so all we are left with is the evil part.

I don't want to start a debate about solidarity or not since you made your position implicitly clear, but I am genuinely interested: Do you apply the same logic to having a police force while not being robbed, getting insurance or paying taxes? (these are various degrees of the same logic to me, not the same)

Solidarity to whom? A group of people that have the same super valuable skills as me? Why do they deserve any of my solidarity any more than anyone else? As to your point, I agree, it is all about degrees, and in my mind the degree to which we, in tech, need unions is 0. I don't buy, at all, the argument that if we should get unionized, with all the negative that implies, just in case we cannot do it when it is needed. Power moves slowly, compared to crime or natural disasters, and we will have plenty of time to react in the unlikely event unions in tech will ever benefit anyone beyond the union leaders.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#275

Post by msrenee »

scarface74 wrote: post #154
aaomidi wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure going from "we can terminate your employment without cause" to "okay these are the reasons we will terminate your employment" is a HUGE stress relief for people. Unions, even when they're not doing much, bring in stability.

Not really. I haven’t been “stressed” about losing my job in decades. I keep my skillset up, my resume in sync with the market, my network strong, and have a go to hell fund. The only time it has ever taken me longer than a month to go from “I’m looking for a job” to “offer” is for my current job. That was only because I wasn’t really looking and was focused on this one job where the interview process took a month to…

Good for you? Not everyone lives where jobs are plentiful. There are a lot of reasons a perfectly competent person may struggle to find a new job if they lose their current one. There are plenty of reasons a person may not be able to float for even a month between getting fired and getting a new job. It's nice that it's easy for you, but that doesn't mean everyone else is just lazy or incompetent because it's not easy for them.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#276

Post by aaomidi »

scarface74 wrote: post #154
aaomidi wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure going from "we can terminate your employment without cause" to "okay these are the reasons we will terminate your employment" is a HUGE stress relief for people. Unions, even when they're not doing much, bring in stability.

Not really. I haven’t been “stressed” about losing my job in decades. I keep my skillset up, my resume in sync with the market, my network strong, and have a go to hell fund. The only time it has ever taken me longer than a month to go from “I’m looking for a job” to “offer” is for my current job. That was only because I wasn’t really looking and was focused on this one job where the interview process took a month to…

Theres a lot more reasons that can lead to job loss other than technical competence.

Being in a union gives you a slice of ownership in the company you're working in. It allows you to have support if you're getting bullied. It also creates a wonderful dynamic with your coworkers.

But yeah, framing this as a technical problem is missing the point entirely.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#277

Post by rdtwo »

scarface74 wrote: post #255
rdtwo wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions make the slow demise of companies bearable for workers. Think of any big company it has a 50-100 year life cycle with the first 10-20 years being up and the rest being middling or decay. During the first 10-20 unions aren’t common or needed much but eventually management rot sets in and you start getting some crazy policies. Take Amazon for example, if they had a Union a lot of the crazy stacked ranking insane…

I happen to work at AWS (ProServe). You know what people did when they saw the wages weren’t competitive? They started leaving in droves forcing Amazon to be competitive. https://www.geekwire.com/2022/amazon-more-than-doubles-max-b... The free market and free will is a great thing isn’t it? So wouldn’t unions also prevent top performers from negotiating wages? How much did unions help the auto industry?

In tech the workers have a lot more negotiating power because you aren’t trapped by heavy capital equipment costs. Still unions help with some of the shitty practices you see like the pip shenanigans at Amazon. There is a cost but if you need or want a stable place to work for more than a few years without burnout they help with work life Protections

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#278

Post by scarface74 »

msrenee wrote: post #275
scarface74 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. I haven’t been “stressed” about losing my job in decades. I keep my skillset up, my resume in sync with the market, my network strong, and have a go to hell fund. The only time it has ever taken me longer than a month to go from “I’m looking for a job” to “offer” is for my current job. That was only because I wasn’t really looking and was focused on this one job where the interview process took a month to…

Good for you? Not everyone lives where jobs are plentiful. There are a lot of reasons a perfectly competent person may struggle to find a new job if they lose their current one. There are plenty of reasons a person may not be able to float for even a month between getting fired and getting a new job. It's nice that it's easy for you, but that doesn't mean everyone else is just lazy or incompetent because it's not eas…

We are talking specifically about tech workers. My company’s headquarters is on the opposite coast. Remote work is a thing.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#279

Post by rdtwo »

scarface74 wrote: post #267
mkr-hn wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's probably actual research on this, but I can't come up with the right search terms. It could be one of those situations where it's impossible to say for sure. You can't exactly design an experiment around it: the decline already happened. So you'd have to do some kind of comparative analysis to figure out how outcomes would have changed without a union. Unions were never a 100% thing, so it might be enough to…

Is this really what we want as a society? https://fortune.com/longform/unions-workplace-technology/ And they fight against merit pay. https://www.econlib.org/archives/2010/10/why_do_unions_o.htm...

If you think you are the top 10% of management favorites then you will not benefit. If you are a middling engineer then you will

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#280

Post by ceras »

UncleMeat wrote: post #258
dls2016 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Manage on-call rotations.

Yep that's a great one. 24h on-call is garbage and unions could absolutely pressure businesses to have more reasonable policies.

What's the alternative to 24hr on-call?
Post reply on HN